Healthy skepticism of ALL worldviews is good. Skeptical of non-belief like found in Atheism? Post your challenging questions. Responses are encouraged.
Kenny wrote:
Give some examples of the type of evidence I need against those specific claims I mentioned, in order to reject them.
Ken
abelcainsbrother wrote: Ken somebody fed you a line of bull and you bought it hook,line and sinker.
Really? Do tell!
abelcainsbrother wrote: If you told me you were a billionaire I would need evidence before I rejected it. If you told me you could run 100 mph I would need evidence before I rejected it. If you told me you could lift a ton I would need evidence it is not true. If you told me you do not believe in any God I would need evidence why you don't.
Okay, that what sounds like a line of bull, and I am not buying it hook,line and sinker. It’s easy for you to say that because you have nothing invested to lose if I were lying to you.
If you were about to go into business with me and you weren’t sure I had enough capital to secure my share of the expense involved, I will bet dollars to doughnuts me simply telling you I am a billionaire would not be good enough, you would make sure I was and if I refused to provide evidence to you I had the capital needed, you wouldn’t take my word for it; because you would be a fool if you did.
If my inability to run 100 mph or lift a ton would cost you your life savings, admit it; you wouldn't take my word for that either.
C'mon Bruh admit it; you know I'm right!
I would have evidence in any scenario to know whether or not you are being truthful.No I wouldn't just believe you and it includes why you reject god's.If you reject god's but have no evidence to choose to think that? I'm going to not believe you just like if you claim to be a billionaire,can run 100 mph,can lift a ton and have no evidence I'm not going to believe you.
Okay; just to be clear, you admit if I claimed to be a billionaire, could run 100 mph, or could lift a ton, and I refused to provide evidence to your satisfaction that I could do these things, you would not take my word for it; is that correct?
Ken
No I did not admit that,it is all based on evidence whether or not I believe you.
That's my point! And the only way I can get you to believe me is for me to provide evidence to your satisfaction that there is merit to my claims right?
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Okay, that what sounds like a line of bull, and I am not buying it hook,line and sinker. It’s easy for you to say that because you have nothing invested to lose if I were lying to you.
If you were about to go into business with me and you weren’t sure I had enough capital to secure my share of the expense involved, I will bet dollars to doughnuts me simply telling you I am a billionaire would not be good enough, you would make sure I was and if I refused to provide evidence to you I had the capital needed, you wouldn’t take my word for it; because you would be a fool if you did.
If my inability to run 100 mph or lift a ton would cost you your life savings, admit it; you wouldn't take my word for that either.
C'mon Bruh admit it; you know I'm right!
I would have evidence in any scenario to know whether or not you are being truthful.No I wouldn't just believe you and it includes why you reject god's.If you reject god's but have no evidence to choose to think that? I'm going to not believe you just like if you claim to be a billionaire,can run 100 mph,can lift a ton and have no evidence I'm not going to believe you.
Okay; just to be clear, you admit if I claimed to be a billionaire, could run 100 mph, or could lift a ton, and I refused to provide evidence to your satisfaction that I could do these things, you would not take my word for it; is that correct?
Ken
No I did not admit that,it is all based on evidence whether or not I believe you.
That's my point! And the only way I can get you to believe me is for me to provide evidence to your satisfaction that there is merit to my claims right?
Ken
Yes,including why you choose to be atheistic in your thinking.You need evidence for why you think like that or else I reject it just like with the other scenarios.It makes no difference,evidence is required to determine truth or not.It does not matter whether you tell me or not,that is irrelevant.We reject things all the time based on evidence.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.
abelcainsbrother wrote:
I would have evidence in any scenario to know whether or not you are being truthful.No I wouldn't just believe you and it includes why you reject god's.If you reject god's but have no evidence to choose to think that? I'm going to not believe you just like if you claim to be a billionaire,can run 100 mph,can lift a ton and have no evidence I'm not going to believe you.
Okay; just to be clear, you admit if I claimed to be a billionaire, could run 100 mph, or could lift a ton, and I refused to provide evidence to your satisfaction that I could do these things, you would not take my word for it; is that correct?
Ken
No I did not admit that,it is all based on evidence whether or not I believe you.
That's my point! And the only way I can get you to believe me is for me to provide evidence to your satisfaction that there is merit to my claims right?
Ken
abelcainsbrother wrote: Yes,including why you choose to be atheistic in your thinking.
I have no idea what you mean by “atheist thinking” but let’s get away from the atheist/theist thing for now, I think it’s clouding your judgment. We can go back to it later if you wish, but for now, we are talking about any type of claim; financial, scientific, any type of claim.
abelcainsbrother wrote: You need evidence for why you think like that or else I reject it just like with the other scenarios.
I couldn’t care less what you reject because I am not trying to convince you of anything. Remember it is YOU who is trying to tell ME how to think and what to believe; not the other way around. That’s why you have the burden of proof and I do not.
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
abelcainsbrother wrote:
I would have evidence in any scenario to know whether or not you are being truthful.No I wouldn't just believe you and it includes why you reject god's.If you reject god's but have no evidence to choose to think that? I'm going to not believe you just like if you claim to be a billionaire,can run 100 mph,can lift a ton and have no evidence I'm not going to believe you.
Okay; just to be clear, you admit if I claimed to be a billionaire, could run 100 mph, or could lift a ton, and I refused to provide evidence to your satisfaction that I could do these things, you would not take my word for it; is that correct?
Ken
No I did not admit that,it is all based on evidence whether or not I believe you.
That's my point! And the only way I can get you to believe me is for me to provide evidence to your satisfaction that there is merit to my claims right?
Ken
abelcainsbrother wrote: Yes,including why you choose to be atheistic in your thinking.
I have no idea what you mean by “atheist thinking” but let’s get away from the atheist/theist thing for now, I think it’s clouding your judgment. We can go back to it later if you wish, but for now, we are talking about any type of claim; financial, scientific, any type of claim.
abelcainsbrother wrote: You need evidence for why you think like that or else I reject it just like with the other scenarios.
I couldn’t care less what you reject because I am not trying to convince you of anything. Remember it is YOU who is trying to tell ME how to think and what to believe; not the other way around. That’s why you have the burden of proof and I do not.
Ken
Who says only I have to give evidence because I'm trying to convince you,but since you are'nt you are excluded Kenny? Who came up with that rule for you to live by and how could you ever believe a person who tells you that?You are not really concerned if you are right to reject god's and do not care if you have any evidence to believe that and think you are excluded from having any evidence to think that way. You expect only others to have evidence but not YOU.
Also the only thing I'm trying to convince you is we do not just go on how we feel to determine truth,like you think,but that we determine what is true or not based on evidence and Christianity is evidence based and always has been,the evidence is available for those who seek it out but before we can search out the truth we must want to know the truth based on evidence and not think that somehow we are excluded from having any evidence like you and atheists/agnostics/skeptics think.You must get serious about evidence and be willing to follow the evidence where ever it leads in order to determine what is true or not.And that you are not serious about evidence because you admit it.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.
Kenny wrote:
Okay; just to be clear, you admit if I claimed to be a billionaire, could run 100 mph, or could lift a ton, and I refused to provide evidence to your satisfaction that I could do these things, you would not take my word for it; is that correct?
Ken
No I did not admit that,it is all based on evidence whether or not I believe you.
That's my point! And the only way I can get you to believe me is for me to provide evidence to your satisfaction that there is merit to my claims right?
Ken
abelcainsbrother wrote: Yes,including why you choose to be atheistic in your thinking.
I have no idea what you mean by “atheist thinking” but let’s get away from the atheist/theist thing for now, I think it’s clouding your judgment. We can go back to it later if you wish, but for now, we are talking about any type of claim; financial, scientific, any type of claim.
abelcainsbrother wrote: You need evidence for why you think like that or else I reject it just like with the other scenarios.
I couldn’t care less what you reject because I am not trying to convince you of anything. Remember it is YOU who is trying to tell ME how to think and what to believe; not the other way around. That’s why you have the burden of proof and I do not.
Ken
Who says only I have to give evidence because I'm trying to convince you,but since you are'nt you are excluded Kenny?.
I say so. I decide what I find convincing nobody else. So as long as you insist on telling me how I should think and what I should believe, the ball is in your court to supply evidence that I find convincing, otherwise your claims will be rejected.
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
abelcainsbrother wrote:
No I did not admit that,it is all based on evidence whether or not I believe you.
That's my point! And the only way I can get you to believe me is for me to provide evidence to your satisfaction that there is merit to my claims right?
Ken
abelcainsbrother wrote: Yes,including why you choose to be atheistic in your thinking.
I have no idea what you mean by “atheist thinking” but let’s get away from the atheist/theist thing for now, I think it’s clouding your judgment. We can go back to it later if you wish, but for now, we are talking about any type of claim; financial, scientific, any type of claim.
abelcainsbrother wrote: You need evidence for why you think like that or else I reject it just like with the other scenarios.
I couldn’t care less what you reject because I am not trying to convince you of anything. Remember it is YOU who is trying to tell ME how to think and what to believe; not the other way around. That’s why you have the burden of proof and I do not.
Ken
Who says only I have to give evidence because I'm trying to convince you,but since you are'nt you are excluded Kenny?.
I say so. I decide what I find convincing nobody else. So as long as you insist on telling me how I should think and what I should believe, the ball is in your court to supply evidence that I find convincing, otherwise your claims will be rejected.
Ken
Really? You accept Russell's teapot? How?Bertrand has no evidence he is right and thinks he doesn't have to have any and you believe him and choose to live out your life ignoring evidence while having none yourself that there is no God?Thinking that way you'll never know you are right or not until you die.But yes,you can choose to think anyway you choose to but it is not evidence based. Could this be why scientists will often say that we can't really know truth doing science?
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.
Kenny wrote:
That's my point! And the only way I can get you to believe me is for me to provide evidence to your satisfaction that there is merit to my claims right?
Ken
abelcainsbrother wrote: Yes,including why you choose to be atheistic in your thinking.
I have no idea what you mean by “atheist thinking” but let’s get away from the atheist/theist thing for now, I think it’s clouding your judgment. We can go back to it later if you wish, but for now, we are talking about any type of claim; financial, scientific, any type of claim.
abelcainsbrother wrote: You need evidence for why you think like that or else I reject it just like with the other scenarios.
I couldn’t care less what you reject because I am not trying to convince you of anything. Remember it is YOU who is trying to tell ME how to think and what to believe; not the other way around. That’s why you have the burden of proof and I do not.
Ken
Who says only I have to give evidence because I'm trying to convince you,but since you are'nt you are excluded Kenny?.
I say so. I decide what I find convincing nobody else. So as long as you insist on telling me how I should think and what I should believe, the ball is in your court to supply evidence that I find convincing, otherwise your claims will be rejected.
Ken
Really? You accept Russell's teapot? How?Bertrand has no evidence he is right and thinks he doesn't have to have any and you believe him and choose to live out your life ignoring evidence while having none yourself that there is no God?
What on Earth are you talking about??? Perhaps you're responding to the wrong post. Go back and read what we just talked about, then respond.
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
I have no idea what you mean by “atheist thinking” but let’s get away from the atheist/theist thing for now, I think it’s clouding your judgment. We can go back to it later if you wish, but for now, we are talking about any type of claim; financial, scientific, any type of claim.
I couldn’t care less what you reject because I am not trying to convince you of anything. Remember it is YOU who is trying to tell ME how to think and what to believe; not the other way around. That’s why you have the burden of proof and I do not.
Ken
Who says only I have to give evidence because I'm trying to convince you,but since you are'nt you are excluded Kenny?.
I say so. I decide what I find convincing nobody else. So as long as you insist on telling me how I should think and what I should believe, the ball is in your court to supply evidence that I find convincing, otherwise your claims will be rejected.
Ken
Really? You accept Russell's teapot? How?Bertrand has no evidence he is right and thinks he doesn't have to have any and you believe him and choose to live out your life ignoring evidence while having none yourself that there is no God?
What on Earth are you talking about??? Perhaps you're responding to the wrong post. Go back and read what we just talked about, then respond.
Ken
Nope I'm responding to your post.Russell's teapot is where this idea that atheists don't have to have any evidence they are right and are excluded from needing any evidence came from,you accept and live your life by,only people who believe in God have the burden of proof according to atheists/agnostics/skeptics and you.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.
abelcainsbrother wrote:
Who says only I have to give evidence because I'm trying to convince you,but since you are'nt you are excluded Kenny?.
I say so. I decide what I find convincing nobody else. So as long as you insist on telling me how I should think and what I should believe, the ball is in your court to supply evidence that I find convincing, otherwise your claims will be rejected.
Ken
Really? You accept Russell's teapot? How?Bertrand has no evidence he is right and thinks he doesn't have to have any and you believe him and choose to live out your life ignoring evidence while having none yourself that there is no God?
What on Earth are you talking about??? Perhaps you're responding to the wrong post. Go back and read what we just talked about, then respond.
Ken
Nope I'm responding to your post.Russell's teapot is where this idea that atheists don't have to have any evidence they are right and are excluded from needing any evidence came from,you accept and live your life by,only people who believe in God have the burden of proof according to atheists/agnostics/skeptics and you.
I don't get my ideas from a tea pot, I get them from reason and logic. As I said before, the only time an Atheist isn't required to provide evidence is when he is not making claims. If you don't like being the only one in the conversation required to provide evidence, quit making claims! Yes it's as simple as that.
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Kenny wrote:
I say so. I decide what I find convincing nobody else. So as long as you insist on telling me how I should think and what I should believe, the ball is in your court to supply evidence that I find convincing, otherwise your claims will be rejected.
Ken
Really? You accept Russell's teapot? How?Bertrand has no evidence he is right and thinks he doesn't have to have any and you believe him and choose to live out your life ignoring evidence while having none yourself that there is no God?
What on Earth are you talking about??? Perhaps you're responding to the wrong post. Go back and read what we just talked about, then respond.
Ken
Nope I'm responding to your post.Russell's teapot is where this idea that atheists don't have to have any evidence they are right and are excluded from needing any evidence came from,you accept and live your life by,only people who believe in God have the burden of proof according to atheists/agnostics/skeptics and you.
I don't get my ideas from a tea pot, I get them from reason and logic. As I said before, the only time an Atheist isn't required to provide evidence is when he is not making claims. If you don't like being the only one in the conversation required to provide evidence, quit making claims! Yes it's as simple as that.
Ken
Reason and logic? How? You choose to be atheist and do not care if you are right or wrong for choosing to be one because you think that if you don't make a claim you're excluded from needing any evidence.I think you were propagandized now to think the way you do because the teapot is where this exclusion for needing evidence for skeptics came from.It is delusional thinking.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.
abelcainsbrother wrote:
Really? You accept Russell's teapot? How?Bertrand has no evidence he is right and thinks he doesn't have to have any and you believe him and choose to live out your life ignoring evidence while having none yourself that there is no God?
What on Earth are you talking about??? Perhaps you're responding to the wrong post. Go back and read what we just talked about, then respond.
Ken
Nope I'm responding to your post.Russell's teapot is where this idea that atheists don't have to have any evidence they are right and are excluded from needing any evidence came from,you accept and live your life by,only people who believe in God have the burden of proof according to atheists/agnostics/skeptics and you.
I don't get my ideas from a tea pot, I get them from reason and logic. As I said before, the only time an Atheist isn't required to provide evidence is when he is not making claims. If you don't like being the only one in the conversation required to provide evidence, quit making claims! Yes it's as simple as that.
Ken
abelcainsbrother wrote: Reason and logic? How? You choose to be atheist and do not care if you are right or wrong for choosing to be one because you think that if you don't make a claim you're excluded from needing any evidence.
I told you countless times about my evidence and all you do is ignore me and go back to claiming I have no evidence.
abelcainsbrother wrote: I think you were propagandized now to think the way you do because the teapot is where this exclusion for needing evidence for skeptics came from.It is delusional thinking.
If I were the type to fall for propaganda, I would be listening to you.
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
abelcainsbrother wrote:
Really? You accept Russell's teapot? How?Bertrand has no evidence he is right and thinks he doesn't have to have any and you believe him and choose to live out your life ignoring evidence while having none yourself that there is no God?
What on Earth are you talking about??? Perhaps you're responding to the wrong post. Go back and read what we just talked about, then respond.
Ken
Nope I'm responding to your post.Russell's teapot is where this idea that atheists don't have to have any evidence they are right and are excluded from needing any evidence came from,you accept and live your life by,only people who believe in God have the burden of proof according to atheists/agnostics/skeptics and you.
I don't get my ideas from a tea pot, I get them from reason and logic. As I said before, the only time an Atheist isn't required to provide evidence is when he is not making claims. If you don't like being the only one in the conversation required to provide evidence, quit making claims! Yes it's as simple as that.
Ken
abelcainsbrother wrote: Reason and logic? How? You choose to be atheist and do not care if you are right or wrong for choosing to be one because you think that if you don't make a claim you're excluded from needing any evidence.
I told you countless times about my evidence and all you do is ignore me and go back to claiming I have no evidence.
abelcainsbrother wrote: I think you were propagandized now to think the way you do because the teapot is where this exclusion for needing evidence for skeptics came from.It is delusional thinking.
If I were the type to fall for propaganda, I would be listening to you.
Ken
You explaining parts of the bible you don't understand is not evidence you are right to reject god's. And you'd be helped listening to me because you would want to know you are right,unlike now and would go by evidence for truth instead of just how you feel.I know you are frustrated with this argument I have against atheists/agnostics but all I'm really doing is pointing out how important evidence is in order to know we are right or not and that you'll never know you are right choosing to be an atheist/agnostic/skeptic because you go on how you feel and not evidence.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.
Once a person chooses to accept an opinion,belief,philosophy,faith,worldview,even the idea that there is no God,etc and chooses to live their life by it,it does not matter if they talk about it or not,to knowingly not care that you are right or not and to exclude yourself from needing any evidence it is correct or not, to live this way? Is delusional.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.
Kenny wrote:
What on Earth are you talking about??? Perhaps you're responding to the wrong post. Go back and read what we just talked about, then respond.
Ken
Nope I'm responding to your post.Russell's teapot is where this idea that atheists don't have to have any evidence they are right and are excluded from needing any evidence came from,you accept and live your life by,only people who believe in God have the burden of proof according to atheists/agnostics/skeptics and you.
I don't get my ideas from a tea pot, I get them from reason and logic. As I said before, the only time an Atheist isn't required to provide evidence is when he is not making claims. If you don't like being the only one in the conversation required to provide evidence, quit making claims! Yes it's as simple as that.
Ken
abelcainsbrother wrote: Reason and logic? How? You choose to be atheist and do not care if you are right or wrong for choosing to be one because you think that if you don't make a claim you're excluded from needing any evidence.
I told you countless times about my evidence and all you do is ignore me and go back to claiming I have no evidence.
abelcainsbrother wrote: I think you were propagandized now to think the way you do because the teapot is where this exclusion for needing evidence for skeptics came from.It is delusional thinking.
If I were the type to fall for propaganda, I would be listening to you.
Ken
You explaining parts of the bible you don't understand is not evidence you are right to reject god's.
The parts of the bible I mentioned, I do understand.
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".